PRESS RELEASE

December 30, 2010
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact:
Lisa Goldman, Acting City Manager, 510-747-4700

New Mayor Marie L. Gilmore and the majority of the Alameda City Council opted for a fresh start Tuesday night, giving a “notice of non-renewal” to Interim City Manager Ann Marie Gallant and placing her on paid administrative leave. The move, in full accordance with Gallant’s interim contract, signals the Council’s desire to build an administrative team in Alameda that reflects the community’s desire for a permanent City Manager.

Mayor Gilmore and the City Council thanked Gallant for her service and for helping the City tackle its difficult financial issues. The City Council named Lisa Goldman Acting City Manager for the duration of the search process, which is expected to last several months.

Goldman has been with the City since February 2007 and is the former Intergovernmental Relations Manager for the City of Fremont. She has degrees from Harvard College and UC Berkeley’s Graduate School of Public Policy and is the right choice to direct City policy during this transition.

Gilmore and other leaders have promised to rebuild trust with the community. “Alameda must move forward,” noted Gilmore, “and that requires permanent staff and a total commitment to stability, transparency and resolving conflicts in good faith.” Gilmore pledged that the search process will set the tone for her administration. “It will be competitive and fair.”

The City Council majority hopes that all civic leaders and residents, regardless of their viewpoints, share this renewed commitment to open debate, civil discourse and public dialogue. “Alameda has a proud tradition and a bright future,” Mayor Gilmore said. “We need a team that views public service as an honor and respects the public’s right to participate in community affairs.”

For more information on the job posting or search process, visit the City of Alameda’s website, www.ci.alameda.ca.us.
# # # # #

So much about this is wrong.

Let’s start with the timing. “New Mayor” Gilmore and “new Vice-Mayor” Bonta have been on the job for a whole week now. They were installed after the nastiest election in our city’s history, filled with deceitful campaign tactics, incessant manipulation by SunCal (and its successor Argent) with waves of outrageous direct mail, robocalls, push polls, YouTube videos and cable TV ads.

The perception of Ann Marie Gallant as a polarizing figure in Alameda politics has mostly been generated as a result of two issues: investigating Lena Tam for BCC:ing emails against City interests, and advising the City that it was not in our best interests to pursue a relationship with SunCal. This was reinforced by many paid advertisements during the most recent political campaign, most notably this one:

In this SunCal-sponsored mailer, she’s accused of “wasting tens of thousands of tax dollars on a personal vendetta” which was untrue; she was rightfully investigating Lena Tam’s violation of the Brown Act, whereby she BCC’ed City emails to SunCal and compromised the City’s negotiating position. Gallant is also said to be “the focus of a $100 million lawsuit” – lodged by SunCal.

Although having taken great pains to distance themselves from the bankrupt developer during the campaign, at the first opportunity, Gilmore, Tam and Bonta did exactly what their benefactors would have hoped: removed their greatest obstacle to Alameda Point. And they way they went about it, in the quiet of the Christmas holiday, with nobody around to notice or speak against them only adds the level of discomfort that their act has engendered.

The press release listed above was issued today, Thursday the 30th. But, as expected, the news was leaked almost immediately after the meeting Tuesday night, not by any official channel, but by CADC official John White, so instrumental in electing Gillmore, Tam and Bonta, who went running to crow on Twitter, Lauren Do’s blog and the SF Gate about it within minutes.

Interestingly, the message was as poorly received as the messenger. On sites where I would expect support and glee, there was suspicion and mistrust. On the SFGate, user KSmooth asked

Not sure what the real reasons are either, but I’m curious why the “Transparency Police” wasn’t all over this. This was done during the holidays when many people were out of town, including one of the city council members, and the way it was agendized, not many people knew who the agenda item was referring to. In fact, most people I talked to believed that the first city council meeting was not taking place until January, after the holidays.

I’m sure many people would have loved to speak out and show their support for the ICM before a decision about her contract was made.

This makes me believe that this whole “transparency” issue is a sham!

Simple Schmoe was more direct:

Why was Gallant put on admin leave until the end of her contract (i.e., fired without having to be officially fired)? The politics of compatibility. Gallants politics and ethics are incompatible with those of the new Mayor, Bonta, and most certainly, Tam… So, it’s not surprising they made Gallant’s ouster a priority; a bad decision and Alameda’s loss, IMO. Who will be next in their ‘purge’? Time will tell. The City is their’s to improve or screw up. That said, the ultimate responsibility for this Council rests with those who voted The Slate into office. I hope you made the right choice for Alameda.

On Patch, carol gottstein wondered:

It appears Gilmore-Bonta-Tam are indeed voting en bloc just like their opponents warned that they would! … city gov’t spending (e.g. this closed session decision) becomes more bizarre daily. I don’t know who the good guys are anymore.

And Jack B. asked on The Island:

John Knox White, I am curious… how did you get the story out so quickly last night? Was there an audience at City Hall waiting for the closed meeting to get out, or did they send out an announcement somehow?

That doesn’t sound like a resounding endorsement from our community, more like a “What? We weren’t expecting that?” Marie Gillmore was voted into office with only 36% of the vote, while SunCal was chased out of Alameda by over 85% of our residents. And she campaigned on a platform of excellent schools, and community unity, not immediately removing the ICM.

“Alameda must move forward,” noted Gilmore, “and that requires permanent staff and a total commitment to stability, transparency and resolving conflicts in good faith… We need a team that views public service as an honor and respects the public’s right to participate in community affairs.”

This statement could not be more true, and I am impressed that Marie understands this. However, with her first act as mayor, and her method of disseminating the information of her actions, it is clear that her administration so far has mastered anything but that.

We did have a good start underway, with a series of meetings soliciting community input for Alameda Point, let by ICM Gallant, but now I’m left to wonder what’s to come of the time and money invested in those meetings? New Mayor Marie Gilmore has already let the Golden Gate Yacht Club know she’s willing to provide facilities at the Point for use for America’s Cup, should they secure it.

But, as of now we have no reason as to why Gallant was let go from her job. Chances are we will never get an official reason other than our basic suspicions that the new powers-that-be are displeased by the ICM. None of her good work protecting us from becoming ensnared with SunCal and renovating our budget was enough to sway them, as it was me, despite my initial misgivings.

2011 will be an interesting year to watch the voting bloc of Gillmore, Tam and Bonta as they try to balance appeasing their benefactors and putting on a good show for the voters of Alameda, all while working out what office to run for next. As well as many important issues to resolve around the city, there are lots of positions to fill: Development Director, City Attorney, Fire Chief, and appointments to boards and commissions. I don’t think there will be many votes in City Council that won’t be 3-2, especially that for the next City Manager.

I hope we citizens will get a chance to “participate in community affairs” beyond commenting on blogs, or hearing about City decisions from anointed messengers who have the right inside connections.

Addendum:

I meant to include this sharp analysis from commenter BigAl at Blogging Bayport as to why the path to SunCal’s return has become even more worrisome:

The lawyer for Gray1 CPB, LLC, that creditor of SCC Acquisitions, Inc. and Bruce Elieff claims he has collected virtually nothing of the $10 Million judgment against them (including attorneys fees), because all of SCC’s and Elieff’s vaunted millions have been hidden. SCC and Elieff have now been sued for another $144 Million by a bankruptcy trustee. As a result, were they to show up in Alameda and claim to the new City Council that they are suddenly flush with cash to develop Alameda Point, word would ricochet down to the creditors down in Orange County that SCC and Elieff were claiming to have cash. That in turn would get them in major league hot water with the $10M unpaid creditor as well as the bankruptcy trustee who is suing them. The problem with being “too cute” about hiding cash in 150+ LLCs, like the judge in the Gray1 case ruled SCC and Elieff had done, is that when the cash reappears it disappears.Whether the current Council members are intelligent enough to see THROUGH Elieff and SCC’s re-emerging as an economically viable developer of Alameda Point will be interesting to watch.

Let’s hope that if there is a time all presentations by SCC and Elieff will have to be out in the open, in compliance with the Brown Act, and not in closed session. I was not thrilled with the City Attorney’s decision on that issue. If the Council insists on hearing an economic presentation from SunCal aka Argent aka SCC aka Elieff in closed session, the attorneys for the $10 Million creditor and the bankruptcy trustee will be able to drag the Council members and City staff into depositions to learn what b,s. the developer had peddled on its financial where-with-all.